Union Steel v. United States
2012 CIT 24
Ct. Intl. Trade2012Background
- Plaintiffs challenge Commerce's zeroing in administrative reviews of an antidumping duty order on corrosion‑resistant steel products.
- The remand required Commerce to explain its zeroing practice and the court reviews the final determination for substantial evidence and legal compliance.
- Post-URAA WTO decisions prompted scrutiny of zeroing and authority asked why zeroing exists in reviews but not investigations.
- Commerce had used average‑to‑average with zeroing in reviews, while shifting to average‑to‑average in investigations; remand explains jurisdictions’ differences.
- Court sustains Commerce's methodology, finding the statute silent on a mandatory zeroing rule and deferring to Commerce's discretion to align with WTO obligations.
- Court discusses stare decisis and explains it may follow JTEKT/Dongbu perspectives while noting Commerce's practice changes are permissible under the statute.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Dongbu/JTEKT bind the court on zeroing in reviews | Dongbu/JTEKT require different treatment | Dongbu/JTEKT cannot bind given new context | Not controlling; court adopts reanalysis under Chevron step two |
| Whether zeroing in reviews is permissible under the statute | Zeroing should be prohibited in reviews | Zeroing is permissible as a reasonable interpretation | Permissible; zeroing in reviews upheld |
| Whether Commerce's WTO‑driven change to limit zeroing in reviews was reasonable | Change was unauthorized by statute | Change appropriate to comply with WTO decisions | Reasonable; not an abuse of discretion |
| Whether the statute requires a particular method (zeroing) or allows discretion | Statute requires not zeroing | Statute silent; discretion allowed | Statute silent; Commerce may choose reasonable methodology |
Key Cases Cited
- Timken Co. v. United States, 354 F.3d 1334 (Fed. Cir. 2004) (statutory interpretation upheld; method reasonable)
- Corus Staal BV v. Dep’t of Commerce, 395 F.3d 1343 (Fed. Cir. 2005) (investigations/zeroing distinctions not mandated by statute)
- NSK Ltd. v. United States, 510 F.3d 1375 (Fed. Cir. 2007) (zeroing upheld in bearings review despite WTO concerns)
- Corus Staal BV v. United States (II), 502 F.3d 1370 (Fed. Cir. 2007) (upheld Commerce's change in review context; prior decisions not absolute)
- U.S. Steel Corp., 621 F.3d 1351 (Fed. Cir. 2010) (approved ancillary reasoning supporting changes to practice for WTO compliance)
- SKF USA, Inc. v. United States, 630 F.3d 1365 (Fed. Cir. 2011) (noting Commerce's efforts to eliminate zeroing in investigations; context for reviews later)
- Dongbu Steel Co., Ltd. v. United States, 635 F.3d 1363 (Fed. Cir. 2011) (new issue analyzed; questions used to reassess statutory interpretation)
- JTEKT Corp. v. United States, 642 F.3d 1378 (Fed. Cir. 2011) (called for explanation from Commerce on same issue)